linux-kernel - Re: Major network performance regression in 3.7

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130106164416.GF16031@1wt.eu>
Date:	Sun, 6 Jan 2013 17:44:16 +0100
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Major network performance regression in 3.7

On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 08:39:53AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Hmm, I'll have to check if this really can be reverted without hurting
> vmsplice() again.

Looking at the code I've been wondering whether we shouldn't transform
the condition to perform the push if we can't push more segments, but
I don't know what to rely on. It would be something like this :

       if (copied &&
          (!(flags & MSG_SENDPAGE_NOTLAST) || cant_push_more))
                tcp_push(sk, flags, mss_now, tp->nonagle);

Willy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/